WILLIAM V. O'CONNOR, JR. (CA SBN 216650) 

WOConnor@mofo.com 

RECEIVED 

AUG -9 2013 

HEARING DOCKET 

2 JOANNA L. SIMON 

JoannaSimon@mofo.com 

3 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 

12531 High BluffDrive 

4 San Diego, California 92130-2040 

Telephone: 858.720.5100 

5 Facsimile: 858.720.5125 

6 Attorneys for Alaska Airlines Inc. 

7 

8 

9 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

10 

11 In the Matter of: 

12 Alaska Airlines Inc. 

FAA Case No. 2011NM020013 

ALASKA AIRLINES INC.'S 

MOTION TO COMPEL AND 

13 UNOPPOSED MOTION TO CONTINUE 

14 

15 

------------------' THE AUGUST 20,2013 HEARING DATE 

I. INTRODUCTION 

16 Based on the limited discovery Alaska Airlines has been permitted in this matter, it is 

17 clear that there is almost no support for this enforcement action within the FAA Certificate 

18 Management Office ("CMO") due to a lack of reliable evidence. In an attempt to conceal the 

19 weight ofthis internal opposition, Government counsel is now making every effort to prevent 

20 Alaska Airlines from completing its investigation and readying this case for hearing through 

21 improper and unsupported assertions of the deliberative process privilege throughout a highly 

22 relevant deposition. Government counsel repeatedly made tenuous objections which, in many 

23 instances, resulted in instructions to an FAA witness not to answer questions. None ofthe 

24 objections did anything more than pay lip service to the vague existence of a privilege, even 

25 though Alaska Airlines's counsel repeatedly asked the Government to clarify its position. The 

26 Government has not met its burden, and has deprived Alaska Airlines of information forming the 

27 basis of the Government's privilege assertion. Alaska Airlines is entitled to the discovery 

28 

ALASKA AIRLINES'S MOTION TO COMPEL 

(No. 2011NM020013) 

sd-622999 

1 
1 requested by this motion. 

2 Most importantly, the Government instructed FAA Aviation Safety Inspector Justin 

3 Meisberger not to answer any questions relating to the Enforcement Investigative Report 

4 Checklist (the "EIR Checklist") completed by the FAA in this case.

1 This EIR checklist, which 

5 was purposefully and voluntarily disclosed to Alaska Airlines by FAA Assistant Principal 

6 Operations Inspector ("POI") Joel Wade,2 states that there "is no conclusive evidence to support' 

7 the violation alleged in the Complaint, and that the sole passenger witness to the alleged violation 

8 has credibility that "is in question." The EIR Checklist further provides that the passenger 

9 witness "acted contrary to logic" and "sacrificed believability by not notifYing flight crew" of the 

10 alleged violation. The production of the EIR Checklist, along with Assistant POI Wade's 

11 comments to Alaska Airlines about the details of the investigation, waives the deliberative 

12 process privilege related to the FAA's investigation. All testimony about the conclusions ofthe 

13 EIR is thus fair game, not to mention necessary for Alaska Airlines to defend itself in this 

14 proceeding as a matter of due process. This conclusion is undeniable, because the EIR Checklis..!_ 

15 and other documents were disclosed by the singular authority within the CMO responsible for the 

16 investigation. The Government's unsupported privilege assertion related to the EIR Checklist and 

17 testimony about it wholly lacks merit. 

18 In fact, the Government took an unsupported view ofthe deliberate process privilege from 

19 the very beginning of Inspector Meisberger's deposition, instructing him not to answer questions 

20 regarding plainly unprivileged material, material: for example, whether there was factual matter 

21 in the Enforcement Investigative Report ("EIR") that was not provided to Alaska Airlines; which 

22 two Federal Aviation Regulations ("F ARs") the FAA chose to include in its investigation; and 

23 whether a particular individual, whose name was listed on the EIR, was involved in the 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1 Inspector Meisberger's deposition has been suspended pending the Court's ruling on this 

Motion. 

2 Joel Wade is now an FAA Aviation Inspector. At all times relevant to this investigation, 

however, he was the Assistant POI at the Alaska Airlines CMO. For purposes of this motion, he 

will be referred to as the Assistant POI. 

ALASKA AIRLINES'S MOTION TO COMPEL 

(No. 2011NM020013) 

sd-622999 

2 
investigation. Despite Alaska Airlines's multiple requests for explanation regarding these facially 

2 unreasonable privilege assertions, Government counsel merely maintained that each question 

3 went to "the essence of deliberative process." This (lack of) explanation by Government counsel 

4 is wholly insufficient to support the privilege. 

5 The Government has forced Alaska Airlines to file this motion to compel, rather than 

6 engage in meaningful discussion about the scope of the asserted privilege ("We can go into this 

7 with motions in front of the judge"). Alaska Airlines request~ that this Court: (1) compel answers 

8 to deposition questions; (2) require the FAA to produce additional documents related to the EIR 

9 and the EIR Checklist; (3) order that the EIR Checklist and related documents are not protected 

10 by the deliberative process privilege; and ( 4) compel additional discovery as set forth fully herein. 

11 In order to accommodate this motion, Alaska Airlines requests that the Court continue the 

12 hearing date in this matter until such time as the privilege issues are resolved and discovery can 

13 be completed. The Government has agreed not to oppose Alaska Airlines's motion to continue the 

14 hearing date. 

15 II. BACKGROUND 

16 The Government's Complaint is based entirely on an unsubstantiated passenger report of 

17 "frost" adhering to the upper wing surface during takeoff of Alaska Airlines Flight 86, which 

18 departed Anchorage, Alaska on January 7, 2011. According to FAA's investigation, the pilots of 

19 Flight 86 conducted all required -checks prior to takeoff, there was no visible moisture in the air or 

20 on the ground at the time of takeoff, and the passenger who saw the purported frost did not report 

21 any frost to the aircraft's crew prior to takeoff(or at any time during the flight, for that matter).3 

22 O'Connor Decl. ~ 2, Ex. A (EIR2011NM020013, Section B) at 2 ("12:36: ATIS reported weather 

23 was clear"); Id. at 3 (the passenger confirmed "that he did not see any visible moisture in the 

24 terminal area"); Id. ~ 3, Ex. C (Meisberger Depo.) at 49:15-50:4. Nonetheless, the 

25 unsubstantiated passenger report sparked an FAA investigation concerning the alleged frost. 

26 After conducting an investigation, the aviation safety inspectors assigned to the file, 

27 3 The passenger witness is Mr. John Elgee, a retired FAA Aviation Safety Inspector. 

28 

ALASKA AIRLINES'S MOTION TO COMPEL 

(No. 2011NM020013) 

sd-622999 

3 
Inspector Meisberger and Assistant POI Wade, recommended against the filing of this 

2 enforcement action, rightly concluding that, for several reasons, the passenger who reported the 

3 "frost" lacked credibility and that there "no conclusive evidence" to prosecute the action. 

4 O'Connor Decl. ~ 5, Ex. D (EIR Checklist) at 3 .. At some point thereafte-r, however, Inspector 

5 Meisberger's and Assistant POI Wade's original recommendation against enforcement was 

6 ignored, and, on the eve ofthe running ofthe statute oflimitations, a Notice of Civil Penalty was 

7 sent to Alaska Airlines. O'Connor Decl. ~ 6, Ex. E (Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty). On May 

8 14, 2013, the Government filed its Complaint, alleging that Alaska Airlines violated 14 C.F.R §§ 

9 119.5(1) and 121.629(b) "when it took offwith an aircraft with frost on the upper wing surface." 

10 O'Connor Decl. ~ 3, Ex. B (Complaint). 

11 Discovery commenced and, pursuant to its discovery requests, Alaska Airlines was 

12 provided portions of the EIR and the Government's items of proof ("lOPs"). Much of the EIR 

13 and the lOPs were redacted and withheld based on the unexplained assertion that they were 

14 privileged, and despite the fact that they contained purely factual information. O'Connor Decl. ~ 

15 2, Ex. A (EIR2011NM020013, Section B). The EIR provided that on January 7, 2011, the Alaska 

16 Airlines Certificate Management Office ("CMO") received a notification from a passenger that 

17 Flight 86 departed Anchorage with, what "was in his estimation," frost on the wings. I d., Ex. A 

18 (EIR2011NM020013, Section B) at 1 (emphasis in original). The EIR also provided that there 

19 was no visible moisture in the air at the time of takeoff, and that under Alaska Airlines's 

20 procedures in place at the time - which had, of course, been approved by the FAA -no additional 

21 deicing procedures were necessary. Id. Ex. A (EIR2011NM020013, Section B); Id. ~ 4, Ex. C 

22 (Meisberger Depo.) at 49:20-50:2. 

23 On February 25, 2013, immediately after the FAA filed its Notice ofProposed Civil 

24 Penalty, Jim Winkelman, Alaska Airlines's Director of Flight Operations Compliance and Quality 

25 Management, received a visit from Assistant POI Wade, the "reviewer" assigned to the EIR 

26 Checklist and the FAA's second-in-command within the CMO at the time ofthe investigation. 

27 Winkelman Decl. ~~ 1, 2, 3. Assistant POI Wade showed, and later provided, Mr. Winkelman 

28 with a copy of the EIR Checklist and other documents. Id. ~ 3, Ex. A (EIR Checklist). Assistant 

ALASKA AIRLINES'S MOTION TO COMPEL 

(No. 2011NM020013) 

sd-622999 

4 
1 POI Wade explained that he did not think enforcement of this action was proper and that he 

2 recommended the FAA not pursue the matter because of questions about the passenger witness's 

3 credibility and the lack of conclusive evidence to support the civil penalty. Jd. ~ 5. Assistant POI 

4 Wade explained that he had several reasons to question the passenger's credibility, including the 

5 passenger's failure to alert the flight crew before takeoff. !d. Assistant POI Wade also explained 

6 that, after he recommended against enforcement, the file was sent to a different..reviewer (for 

7 unknown reasons).4 Id. ~ 6. 

8 At Inspector Meisberger's August 1, 2013 deposition, Government counsel objected to 

9 (a~d gave instructions not ~o answer) any question_yaguely seeking information that may have 

10 formed any part of the FAA's deliberative process. For example, FAA counsel instructed 

11 Inspector Meisberger not to answer the following questions, on the ground that they sought 

12 privileged information: 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

• Whether there was factual matter in the Enforcement Investigative Report 

that was not provided to Alaska-Airlines; O'Connor Decl. ~ 4, Ex. C 

(Meisberger Depo.) at 16:10-17:15 ("what hasn't been provided to you, is 

privileged information."); 

• Which two Federal Aviation Regulations ("F ARs") the FAA chose to rely 

on; id. Ex. C (Meisberger Depo.) at 67:16-68:20 ("What's privileged about 

the recitation oftwo FARs?"); and 

• Whether a particular individuai was involved in the investigation (even 

though his name was listed on the EIR and Alaska Airlines had long 

known he was involved in the investigation). !d. Ex. C (Meisberger Depo.) 

at 76:2-21 ("Was Mr. Wade involved in this investigation?") 

21 Further, Government counsel objected to (and gave instructions not to answer) any 

22 questions regarding the EIR Checklist, the original recommendation against enforcement, the 

23 finding that there was "no conclusive evidence to support" enforcement, or the finding that the 

24 passenger witness lacked credibility. !d. Ex. C (Meisberger Depo.) at 109:9-115:15. Government 

25 

26 

27 

28 

4 It should be noted, however, that the passenger witness is married to Angela Elgee, who 

was, at the time, the FAA Division Manager for the Alaska region, which is the highest ranking 

FAA official in Alaska. Also notable is that the original e-mail complaint concerning the 

purported frost was sent from the passenger directly to Angela Elgee. 

ALASKA AIRLINES'S MOTION TO COMPEL 

(No. 2011NM020013) 

sd-622999 

5 
1 counsel again based his purported objections on the "deliberative process privilege," without any 

2 further explanation as to how or why the documents were privileged. !d. Ex. C (Meisberger 

3 Depo.) at 110:1 0-13; 110:16-18, 11 0:22-25; 111 :4-7; 111 :9-17; Ill :25-112:21. Yet, the FAA 

4 authority involved in the very deliberation the Government now seeks to cloak, Assistant POI 

5 Wade, knowingly and intentionally disclosed the EIR Checklist to Alaska Airlines. The EIR 

6 Checklist shows the Government's initial recommendation against prosecution based on the 

7 finding that the passenger witness lacked credibility and that the evidence was insufficient. 

8 Assistant POI Wade provided these documents because, in his view, this action was "totally 

. 

9 bogus" and "not valid." Winkelman Decl. ~ 7. Even if the EIR Checklist and the FAA's non1 0 enforcement and lack of credibility determinations were somehow subject to the deliberative 

11 process privilege as Government counsel now suggests (though this certainly has not been 

12 demonstrated), the FAA plainly waived that protection through its purposeful and voluntary 

13 disclosure of the EIR Checklist and related documents. 

14 III. MOTION TO COMPEL STANDARD 

15 Under 14 C.P.R. § 13.220(e) discovery may be had concerning "any matter that is not 

16 privileged and that is relevant to the subject matter of the proceeding." A motion to compel is 

17 proper if"a person refuses to answer a question during a deposition," or "fails or refuses to 

18 answer an interrogatory" or "fails or refuses to produce documents or tangible items." 14 C.F .R. § 

19 13.220(m). The administrative law judge "shall resolve disputes regarding discovery[.]" !d. § 

20 13.217(c). 

21 IV. ALASKA AIRLINES MOTION TO COMPEL SHOULD BE GRANTED 

22 Alaska Airlines's Motion to Compel should be granted because the Government has not 

23 established that the EIR Checklist or other information sought by Alaska Airlines is privileged, 

24 and, in any event, any applicable privileged has been waived through the Government's deliberate 

25 disclosure. 

26 

27 

28 

A. The Government Has Not Met Its Burden to Establish That The EIR 

Checklist Is Protected By The Deliberative Process Privilege 

The Government has wholly failed to meet its burden of proving the deliberative process 

ALASKA AIRLINES'S MOTION TO COMPEL 

(No. 201 1NM020013) 

sd-622999 

6 
privilege applies to the EIR Checklist and related documents and testimony. The party asserting 

2 the privilege bears the burden of proving each essential element. See Pac. Fisheries, Inc. v. 

3 United States, 539 F.3d 1143, 1149 (9th Cir. 2008) ("the record was insufficient because it did 

4 not provide Pacific Fisheries or the district court with specific ~nough information to determine 

5 whether the IRS had properly segregated and disclosed factual portions of those documents that 

6 the IRS claimed were exempt under the deliberative process privilege."); United States v. Graj, 

7 610 F.3d 1148, 1156 (9th Cir. 2010) (attorney-client privilege). Moreover, a declaration that the 

8 Government "attempted to segregate all factual portions of these documents" from the privileged 

- 9 portions is "is too conclusory to meet the agency's burden." Pac. Fisheries, 539 F.3d at 1149-50. 

10 In order to meet its burden, the Pacific Fisheries court required the Government to describe in 

11 "detail the withheld portions of these documents so that both the district court and Pacific 

12 Fisheries can evaluate the government's claims of exemption." Jd. 

13 Here, Alaska Airlines has been provided nothing more than the Government attorney's 

14 statement that the requested testimony and related documents are "deliberative." Counsel for 

15 Alaska Airlines requested a more detailed explanation "so [it] can determine whether the 

16 privilege applies and when." O'Connor Decl. ~ 4, Ex. C (Meisberger Depo.) at 111:21-24. 

17 Alaska Airlines counsel explained that he was "trying to narrow the basis for the privilege" 

18 because "it is literally impossible to test the privilege" without further information from the 

19 Government. Id., Ex. C (Meisberger Depo.) at 18:21-23, 16:24-17:4. Yet, the Government 

20 refused to provide further information, maintaining that the questions went to the "essence of 

21 deliberative process." Id. Ex. C, (Meisberger Depo.) at 65:18-20. The Government's conclusory 

22 statement that the EIR Checklist and related and testimony are "deliberative" is entirely 

23 insufficient to meet the Government's burden of proving the EIR Checklist is privileged. Even if 

24 the Government were to meet its burden, however, the privilege has plainly been waived as 

25 discussed below. 

26 

27 

28 

B. The FAA Waived The Claimed Privilege By Its Purposeful And 

Voluntary Disclosure Of The EIR Checklist and Related Documents 

The FAA's deliberate disclosure of the EIR Checklist- including its comments section 

ALASKA AIRLINES'S MOTION TO COMPEL 

(No. 2011NM020013) 

sd-622999 

7 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

setting forth the FAA's original determination that an enforcement action should not be 

prosecuted due to lack of witness credibility, and because there was "no conclusive evidence to 

support" enforcement- waives any privilege that FAA counsel is now attempting to assert with 

regards to the EIR checklist and related documents and testimony. 

Where, like here, an agency voluntarily distributes material that may have been protected 

by the deliberative process privilege, that privilege is waived. See Moye, 0 'Brien, 0 'Rourke, 

Hogan & Pickert v. Nat'! R.R. Passenger Corp., No. 6:02-CV-126, slip op. at 21 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 

18, 2003), rev'd on other grounds, 376 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 543-U.S. 1121 

(2005). In Moye, the court held that the deliberative process privilege was waived when draft 

audit report results were shared by agency auditors with the subject of the audit. See id. ("The 

evidence established that, at these exit conferences, Amtrak auditors provided the contractor with 

the proposed audit results, reviewed with the contractor each~part of the draft audit findings, and 

disclosed to the contractor the audit results as set forth in the then existing exhibit to the draft 

audit report ... Accordingly, I find that Amtrak's waived the deliberative process privilege"). 

Other courts are in accord with the Moye, finding waiver where an agency discloses 

information to an interested party. See, e.g., Comm. to Bridge the Gap, No. 90-3568, transcript at 

3-5 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 1991) (bench order) (ruling that agency waived deliberative process 

privilege by voluntarily providing draft order to interested party); Nw. Envtl. Def Ctr. v. US. 

Forest Serv., No. 91-125, slip op. at 12 (D. Or. Aug. 23, 1991) (magistrate's recommendation) 

(determining that agency waived deliberative process privilege as to portion of agency report that 

was discussed with "interested" third party), adopted, (D. Or. Feb. 12, 1992). 

Here, the FAA authority responsible for the investigation purposefully provided the EIR 

checklist, including the credibility comments and "no conclusive evidence" finding, to Alaska 

Airlines (an obviously interested party). See Winkelman Dec!. ,-r 3, Ex. A (EIR Checklist). 

Assistant POI Wade, second-in-command within the CMO, provided the EIR Checklist directly 

to Jim Winkelman, Alaska Airlines's Director of Flight Operations Compliance. Id. ,-r 3. He did 

so after the Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty had been filed, with full knowledge he was 

disclosing highly material agency information concerning the FAA's investigation to an 

ALASKA AIRLINES'S MOTION TO COMPEL 

(No. 201 INM020013) 

sd-622999 

8 
"interested party" - indeed, to the respondent in this action. Indeed, Assistant POI Wade 

2 disclosed that he thought the FAA's action was "totally bogus." Id. ~~ 3, 7. This deliberate 

3 action by a senior FAA official (who was directly involved in the investigation, no less) plainly 

4 waives any privilege that may have attached to the EIR checklist, comments, and other 

5 documents and conversations that may have concerned the original recommendation against 

6 enforcement and the finding that the passenger witness lacked credibility. 

7 

8 

c. The FAA's "No Conclusive Evidence" and Passenger Credibility 

Findings Are Highly Relevant 

9 The Government's case rests solely on the credibility of one passenger witness, who 

10 allegedly saw "frost" on the upper-wing ofFlight 86. Yet this passenger, despite purported 

11 knowledge of the dangers of taking offwith a contaminated aircraft, did not report the "frost" to 

12 the flight crew. The FAA has expressed serious doubts about the passenger witness's credibility. 

13 Indeed, the FAA's doubts were so strong that the FAA Inspectors assigned to the file concluded 

14 that there was "no conclusive evidence to support" this enforcement action. These findings were 

15 purposefully and voluntarily shared with Alaska Airlines. Fairness now dictates that all evidence 

16 related to the EIR Checklist and the findings contained therein is both discoverable and 

17 admissible. 

18 D. Other Improper Government Objections 

19 The Government's further deliberative process-based objections to questions seeking 

20 plainly relevant, unprivileged information (like whether, to the best oflnspector Meisberger's 

21 knowledge there was factual matter in the EIR that was redacted) are also improper. The 

22 deliberative process privilege does not protect purely factual, investigative material contained 

23 documents that may be otherwise deliberative. See EPA v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73, 89, 91 (1973). 

24 Accordingly, this Court should compel further answers to, for example, the following questions: 

25 

26 

27 

28 

• Whether there was factual matter in the Enforcement Investigative Report 

("EIR") that was not provided to Alaska Airlines; 

• Which two Federal Aviation Regulations ("F ARs") the FAA chose to 

include in its investigation; and 

ALASKA AIRLINES'S MOTION TO COMPEL 

(No. 2011NM020013) 9 

sd-622999 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

• Whether a particular individual, whose name was listed on the EIR, was 

involved in the investigation. 

Moreover, the Court should compel answers to any other question that does not implicate 

information and/or documents that are pre-decisional and deliberative. In Alaska Airlines's view, 

the only way to determine the scope of the information being improperly withheld by 

Government counsel is for the Court to review the entirety of the unredacted EIR and lOPs in 

camera and to make specific rulings on the propriety of each of the Government's privilege 

designations. See Steinberg v. United States Dep't of Justice, 179 F.R.D. 357, 364 (D.D.C. 1998) 

(requiring agency to submit documents for in camera review of segregability). 

V. ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY MATTERS 

A. The FAA Should Be Required To Produce Its Purported Expert's 

Opinions 

12 In its discovery responses, the Government indicated that it intends to call Thomas Bond 

13 as an expert witness. O'Connor Decl. ,-r 7, Ex. F (Discovery Responses) at 1. The Government's 

14 responses also said that "a list of the expert's previous testimony will be forthcoming" and 

15 referred Alaska Airlines to the EIR as the expert's "written report." I d., Ex. F (Discovery 

16 Responses) at 2. Counsel for Alaska Airlines has repeatedly requested supplementation of these 

17 responses. Id. ,-r 9. Government counsel has admitted that the EIR does not in fact contain Mr. 

18 Bond's expert opinions. Id. ,-r 4, Ex. C Meisberger Depo. at 65:6-13. As Mr. Bond's opinion 

19 appears to be the sole basis of the Government's case against Alaska Airlines, the Court should 

20 compel production of Mr. Bond's expert report to allow Alaska Airlines an opportunity to review 

21 the basis for this action. 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

B. The FAA Should Be Required To Produce All Correspondence with 

John Elgee 

Alaska Airlines requested "all correspondence, including e-mails, any employee of the 

[FAA] has sent to or received from John Elgee regarding this action or the allegations in the 

complaint." O'Connor Decl. ,-r 7, Ex. F (Discovery Responses) at 4 (RFP No.4). The Government 

objected, arguing that "this requests seeks attorney communication and or attorney work 

product." Jd., Ex. F (Discovery Responses). Mr. Elgee is the passenger witness to this alleged 

ALASKA AIRLINES'S MOTION TO COMPEL 

(No. 2011NM020013) 

sd-622999 

10 
1 incident, not a FAA employee. Accordingly, communications with Mr. Elgee cannot be protected 

2 by either attorney-client or work-product privilege. The FAA should be compelled to produce 

3 these communications. 

4 c. Alaska Airlines's Outstanding Discovery Requests 

5 Alaska Airlines recently served the Government with a second set of discovery request~. 

6 Based on the Government's privilege waiver, Alaska Airlines is entitled to full responses to its 

7 second set of discovery. O'Connor Decl. ~ 8, Ex. G (Discovery Requests (Set Two)). These 

8 requests include interrogatories concerning (1) changes the FAA intends to make to 14 C.F .R. § 

9 121.629; (2) the identity of experts who reviewed or analyzed certain photographs; and (3) 

1 0 aggravating or mitigating circumstances identified by the FAA investigators. The requests also 

11 seek documents (1) contained in Inspector Meisberger's files related to this action; (2) contained 

12 in Assistant POI Wade's files related-to this action; and (3) contained in FAA Supervisory 

13 Aviation Safety Inspector Walt Bala's files related to this action. !d., Ex. G. Alaska Airlines 

14 anticipates the Government will object to these requests, by citing deliberative process privilege. 

15 As discussed above, Alaska Airlines requests that the Court find the purposeful disclosure of the 

16 EIR Checklist in Assistant POI Wade's files waived any deliberative process privilege that may 

17 be claimed in response to Alaska Airlines's second set of discovery requests. 

18 VI. REQUEST FOR A CONTINUANCE OF THE AUGUST 20, 2013 HEARING 

19 In order to resolve the outstanding issues, Alaska Airlines requests that the Court continue 

20 the hearing date in this matter until such time as the privilege issues are resolved and discovery 

21 can be completed. The Government has no objection to the request for a continuance. O'Connor 

22 Decl. ~ 10. 

23 II 

24 Ill 

25 Ill 

26 Ill 

27 Ill 

28 

ALASKA AIRLINES'S MOTION TO COMPEL 

(No. 2011NM020013) 

sd-622999 

11 
1 VII. CONCLUSION 

2 For all the foregoing reasons, this Court should grant Alaska Airlines's Motion to 

3 Compel. Additionally, the Court should continue the hearing in this matter. 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Dated: August 9, 2013 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 

ALASKA AIRLINE'S MOTION TO COMPEL 

(No.201INM020013) 

sd-622999 

Attorneys for Defendant 

ALASKA AIRLINES INC. 

12 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

2 The undersigned certifies under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe State of 

3 California that on this date I caused to be served in the matter indicated a copy ofthe within and 

4 foregoing document upon the following persons: 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC - 4.30 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1 000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Robert Spitzer 

Robert.Spi.t£er@faa.gov 

FAA Office of Regional Counsel 

1601 Lind A venue, SW 

Renton, W A 98057 

14 Dated: August 9, 2013 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Ce11 i ate of Service 

(No. )11NM020013) 

1 

Via Nationwide Legal, Inc. 

Via E-Mail